Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The validation opinion does not contain a confirmation that the changes do not require prior approval of the Board and the provisions of Appendix 1 of Project Standard apply to those corrections
Issue: The DOE verified the changes related to the definitions of frequency of the monitoring and monitoring period in the sections B.7.1 and B.7.2 (monitoring plan) of the PDD as " Corrections that do not affect project design". However, the permanent changes have been made to the section of the monitoring plan which are not included in the Appendix 1 of project standard. Further clarification is required by the DOE on 1) how it verified the changes as per para 248 of VVS version 2 and 2) why it did not submit a request for approval by the Board prior to the submission of the request for issuance as per para 133 of project cycle procedure as there are the permanent changes to the monitoring plan.

2: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
First: "The DOE is required to further substantiate how it verified 1) the total number of SAVE80 systems in use per vintage (Ny,i) for part 1 and part 2 of the monitoring period as there are differences in the reported values between the spreadsheet (part 1: 2,192.34 and part 2: 3,881.48) and the monitoring report (p 11) / verification report (p 31) (part 1: 2,109.80 and part 2: 3,695.49) and 2) the monthly number of systems delivered as the value presented in the spreadsheet for the delivery date “until June 2010” for part 1 is different from the value for part 2 considering that those systems were already deployed during the first monitoring period."

Second: "The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it verified the efficiency of the SAVE80 system as per the monitoring plan (p 37) which defines efficiency of the SAVE80 system for each vintage as the mean value of the three tests multiplied by a Conservativeness factor of 0.943 considering that 1) the efficiency of the SAVE80 system for each vintage (nnew,i) is based on an old value of efficiency tests conducted for the 1st monitoring period for vintage 1 (35.19%) without further recalculation and b) the DOE (p 49) states that "Weighted average of efficiency has been determined taking the proportion of stoves sold in the corresponding vintage."

3: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue:"The DOE is required to further explain how it considers that the sample used for the verification of the drop-out rate represents the systems deployed in each monitoring campaign as the spreadsheet presents the calculation which considers a) for part 1: the entire population (N = 3546) distributed from the first monitoring period until at the end of the first monitoring campaign and b) for part 2: (N= 5401) from the first monitoring period until at the end of the second monitoring campaign. "